Saturday, March 11, 2017

Ramanujan's Letter (7)

On reflection, I think perhaps that the holistic "conversion" that I provided yesterday for ζ(– 2), could be modified a little.

Initially, I suggested that the "converted" ζ(– 2),


= (e2iπ – 1)/12  +  (e4iπ – 1)/2+  (e6iπ – 1)/3+  (e8iπ – 1)/4+ ...,  

However, more accurately it should be,


(e2iπ – 1)/1– 2  +  (e4iπ – 1)/2– 2   +  (e6iπ – 1)/3– 2 +  (e8iπ – 1)/4– 2  + ...,  

In fact the standard expression for ζ(– 2) is given as,


1/1– 2  +  1/2– 2   + 1/3– 2 +  1/4– 2  + ...,  


This could be then be expressed as,


e2iπ/1– 2  + e4iπ/2– 2  +  e6iπ/3– 2 +  e8iπ/4– 2  + ...,  where e2iπ = e4iπ = e6iπ = e8iπ  + ...  = 1 (in a reduced quantitative manner).  

So in a certain sense the holistic "conversion" for  ζ(– 2) can be expressed as,


=
(1 – 1)/1– 2 +  (1 – 1)/2– 2   (1 – 1)/3– 2 +  (1 – 1)/4– 2  + ...     = 0.


When we interpret this result in a true holistic manner, it becomes clear what is really involved.


Now in customary analytic terms 
1 – 1 = 0 carries a static absolute interpretation.

However in corresponding holistic terms 1 – 1 = 0, carries a dynamic relative meaning.


For example in physics, when a particle (+ 1) interacts with with its anti-particle (– 1), there is a fusion resulting in a pure energy state.  So we are at the other extreme here to the absolute notion of unchanging form.


Likewise in psycho spiritual terms, when the external aspect of number (as a number "object") is fully negated in an unconscious manner through a complete fusion with its corresponding internal aspect (as number "perception") again this results in an energy state representing pure intuition.


So again we are now at the opposite holistic extreme, in this purely relative experience of number, from the corresponding analytic extreme (where number is viewed in absolute rigid terms as an unchanging object).


Thus we have the analytic extreme where number is interpreted in a rational absolute manner.

Then we have the corresponding holistic extreme, where number is experienced directly in an intuitive manner (as the full interdependence of opposite poles).  

Now again, 2 in analytic terms, represents the quantitative understanding of this number (where its component units are interpreted in an independent manner).


However 2 in holistic terms represents the qualitative understanding of this number as "twoness" (where its component units are understood in an interdependent manner i.e. where both units are complementary in a relative fashion as + 1 and – 1, respectively.


Now positive 2- dimensional understanding (+ 2) entails the indirect rational interpretation of the complementarity of opposites (which are identified initially as separate from each other). 

However negative 2-dimensional understanding (– 2) entails the direct intuitive experience of such opposite poles as fully interdependent with each other, where objective truth" and subjective (mental) interpretation fully merge with each other in experience.

And this is precisely what the Riemann zeta function for s = – 2 entails. In other words it represents the direct intuitive realisation of all numbers as combining both positive and negative polarities in a dynamic relative fashion.

So in this relative sense, + 1 from an equally valid opposite perspective is also – 1, + 2 = – 2, + 3 = – 3 and so on.

Thus by combining both directions for each number, it is easy to see why the Riemann function (for s = – 2) = 0. 
And by extension, as all roots of the even integers involve complementary pairings, it is easy to see why the Riemann function for s = – 2, – 4, – 6, ...  = 0.

However it is important to recognise that the symbol "0" in this context carries a true holistic meaning (i.e. as nothing in a phenomenal number manner). However it does represent a highly important psycho spiritual energy state (as the potential for number transformation).

However the clear implications of what I am saying here are utterly devastating for conventional mathematical interpretation.

As we have seen all mathematical symbols carry both an analytic (quantitative) and holistic (qualitative) interpretation, relating to the two aspects of number independence and number interdependence respectively.

Using language from quantum mechanics, all numbers carry both particle and wave aspects which keep interchanging in the dynamics of experience.
However Conventional Mathematics is build on the greatly reduced assumption that numbers can be coherently understood in an abstract absolute manner (with respect to their merely quantitative attributes).

Strictly speaking, this is utterly fallacious with the Riemann zeta function crying out for a dynamic interpretation to make coherent sense of the relative interconnections as between number.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Ramanujan's Letter (6)

We return here to our main focus of concern regarding the need for a holistic circular conversion of each term - indirectly in a quantitative manner - in order to give an intuitive meaning to to results of the Riemann zeta function )for negative odd integer values of s).

And as we have seen, all these can be "converted" with respect to a central result, where s =  – 13.

113/{(1 –  e)/2} + 213/{(1 –  e)/2} + 313/{(1 –  e)/2} + 413/{(–  e8π )/2} + ...    =  – 1/12.

This can also be expressed as,

113/{(1 1– i )/2} + 213/{(1 1– 2i )/2} + 313/{(1 1– 3i )/2} + 413/{(1 – 1– 4i )/2} + ...    =  – 1/12.

However as we know, where negative even integer values of s are concerned in the Riemann zeta function, the results always = 0 (yielding the so-called trivial zeros).

So, for example, according to the Riemann zeta function when s = 2, we have,

1/1– 2 + 1/2– 2 + 1/3– 2 + 1/4– 2 + ... ,

 =  122 + 32 + 4+ ...    =  0,

i.e.   1 + 4 + 9 + 16 + ...  = 0.

But again, such a result is completely non-intuitive from the standard conventional linear perspective, where the sum of the series diverges to infinity.

So just as for negative odd integer values of s, an appropriate holistic circular conversion is required - indirectly in a quantitative manner - so that the numerical result then successfully accords with intuitive expectations.

What I suggest therefore is the following;

 (e2iπ – 1)/12  +  (e4iπ – 1)/2+  (e6iπ – 1)/3+  (e8iπ – 1)/4+ ...,

= (1 – 1)/12  +  (1 – 1)/2+  (1 – 1)/3+  (1 – 1)/4+ ... ,

= 0/1 + 0/4 + 0/9 + 0/16 + ....   = 0.

Now there is a direct connection here with the Type 2 aspect of the number system, which in a dynamic relative manner complements the corresponding Type 1 aspect.

So e2iπ  = 1,  i.e. 11,

     e4iπ   = 1,  i.e. 12,

     e6iπ   = 1,  i.e. 13,

     e8iπ   = 1,  i.e. 14, and so on.


Therefore we could equally write the holistic converted expression as,

(11 – 1)/12  +  (12 – 1)/2+  (13 – 1)/3+  (14 – 1)/4+ ...,

Thus what we have here is a perfect matching of each of the natural numbers from both the Type 1 and Type 2 perspectives (with the Type 2 appearing in the numerator and the Type 1 in the denominator respectively).

Therefore we are at the opposite holistic extreme here from the conventional analytic extreme of understanding.

Remember in conventional mathematical terms, that quantitative and qualitative aspects of understanding are abstracted from each other in an absolute manner so that the Type 2 aspect of the number system is completely ignored, being thereby reduced in every circumstance in a Type 1 (absolute) manner!

This therefore represents the analytic extreme of understanding i.e. where number is understood in a merely quantitative fashion.

However, from the holistic extreme, both quantitative (Type 1) and qualitative (Type 2) aspects of the number system are understood to be fully related to each other, as complementary aspects, in a dynamic interactive manner.

Thus when one perfectly understands the nature of number from this perspective, any separate notion of number, as formally existing, is eroded in a true intuitive appreciation of number as a pure state of energy (in psycho-physical terms).

So, quite literally one's experience of number in such an intuitive manner is - literally - nothing (i.e. 0) in formal terms.

Because of the great importance of this point, I will trace out now in more detail what this experiential 2-dimensional realisation (in negative terms) entails.

Now, again,  the standard 1-dimensional interpretation of number is one-directional where the (external) number object is clearly separated from its corresponding (internal) mental perception.

Thus in linear (1-dimensional) terms - which represents standard mathematical interpretation - the number object is explicitly given a single direction, where its is - literally - posited in an (external) conscious manner.

However with circular (2-dimensional) interpretation, both the (external) number objects and its corresponding (internal) mental perception are seen as complementary aspects of the same number experience. So both aspects, external and internal, have now a merely relative status with true appreciation of such relativity requiring that the external object aspects be dynamically negated (in an unconscious manner) thereby enabling smooth switching to its complementary internal aspect, which is thereby posited in a conscious manner. In like manner, one must then dynamically negate the (internal) number perception to enable switching to the (external) number object which is now again posited.

So in dynamic terms, a continual positing (conscious) and negating (unconscious) of both number aspects takes place, which is the very means by which the holistic interdependent nature of number is thereby appreciated.

Then as we approach the holistic limit of appreciation, switching as between both external and internal aspects is now so dynamic, with emphasis on ever-more refined unconscious negation, that we lose any separate notion of the identity of either aspect. And this is where the pure intuitive appreciation of number, as an energy state, is reached.

And this is precisely 2-dimensional in holistic terms, with both a positive (+) and negative (– ) pole.

Now there are many "higher" even dimensions (that are negative in sign). However they all entail an exact matching of complementary positive and negative poles resulting in ever more refined purely intuitive energy states. And this likewise concurs with an exact matching of Type 1 and Type 2 aspects of number (as suggested by the formula).

To write the converted holistic expression in more general terms for all trivial zeros results of the Riemann zeta function (where s is a negative even integer) we have the following:

(e2iπk – 1)/12k  +  (e4iπk – 1)/22k +  (e6iπk – 1)/32k +  (e8iπk – 1)/42k + ...,

where k = 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Ramanujan's Letter (5)

I would like to move on to another fascinating result from Ramanujan's 1st letter to Hardy.

Ramanujan asks us to take all numbers with an odd number of prime divisors. This had me initially scratching my head as to what this might entail! He then gives a list of these numbers up to 50, i.e..

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 30, 31, 37, 41, 42, 43, 47

It is noteworthy that - apart from 30 and 32 - these provide a list of the prime nos. to 50.

So in all but 2 cases up to 50 an odd number of prime divisors implies just one divisor, i.e. the prime number itself.

The 2 exceptions here, 30 and 42 both contain 3 dissimilar prime divisors i.e. 30 = 2 * 3 * 5 and 42 = 2 * 3 * 7.

He then gives a formula for the sum of the squares of the reciprocals of these numbers,

i.e. 1/22 + 1/32 + 1/52 + ... + 1/302 + 1/312 + ...  = 9/2π2.

Now this bears direct comparison with the Riemann zeta function (for  s = 2), where, the sum of the squares of the reciprocals of the natural numbers, i.e.

1/12 + 1/22 + 1/32 + 1/42 +  ...  = π2/6.

What is remarkable here, is that if one attempts to sum up the reciprocals of the prime numbers that it will converge very close to the value 9/2π2 as all the terms up to 1/292 relate to primes.

So one could be easily tempted therefore to draw the wrong conclusion that the sum of the squares of reciprocals of the prime numbers converges to a neat expression involving the corresponding square of π.

However what is very interesting is that - whereas with the sums of squares of the natural numbers - the square of π relates to the numerator of the result, in the case of the reciprocals of the squares of the primes the corresponding square of π relates to the denominator.

However it is still noteworthy that the sum of squares of the reciprocals of primes approximates so closely to a square of π expression.  


This pattern is even more in evidence in relation to the reciprocals of the same numbers (i.e. with an odd no. of prime divisors) when raised to the power of 4.

Ramanujan gives the following neat formula (showing definite similarities with the previous formula
for reciprocals raised to the power of 2).
 
1/24 + 1/34 + 1/54 + ... + 1/304 + 1/314 + ... = 15/2π4.

The potential prime number trap is even more closely in evidence here.

For example if one adds up the reciprocals (raised to the power of 4) of all the primes to 100, one obtains the result 14.999649.../2π4. One might then be forgiven for assuming that with the addition of further prime terms that the numerator of the expression here would converge eventually to 15.

However the true result of adding the reciprocals (raised to the power of 4) of all numbers divisible by an odd number of prime factors up to 100 = 14.999976.../2π4.

So sometimes initial appearances may prove deceptive. However once again it is indeed striking that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes (raised to the power of 4) approximates so closely to 15/2π4.


Then there are further surprises arising. One might again be tempted to think that with nice expression in powers of π arising where the reciprocals of relevant terms are raised to the power of 2 and power of 4 respectively, that this pattern would be repeated for all powers (entailing positive even integers).

However this does not appear to be the case. Certainly from my own investigations, there was no evidence of any simple number pattern (relating to powers of π) emerging with other even integer dimensions.

Likewise I could find no simple pattern entailing reciprocals of numbers with an even number of prime factors.

So again it is so ingenious how Ramanujan made such discoveries.

Incidentally, he also gives a simple formula for the calculation of the frequency of numbers with an odd number of prime factors.

This is given as 3n/π2.

This would imply that where n = 100, we should expect  30.396...  i.e. 30 (rounded to the nearest integer). And in fact this is exactly the number we obtain containing the 25 primes up to 100 and 30, 42, 66, 70 and 78.  

Of course most of the numbers here to 100 are prime. However as we move higher up the number scale, the relative percentage of prime to all divisors (comprising an odd number of prime factors) would steadily decrease.

Monday, March 6, 2017

Ramanujan's Letter (4)

We ended yesterday's entry with the "converted" holistic expression for ζ(– 3), i.e.

113/5(e– 1) + 213/5(e– 1) + 313/5(e– 1) + ...   = 1/120.

Perhaps this is better written as,

2.113/10(e– 1) + 2.213/10(e– 1) + 2.313/10(e– 1) + ...  = 1/120.   

And then the corresponding "converted" holistic expression for  ζ(– 5),

= 2.113/21(1 –  e) + 2.213/21(1 –  e) + 2.313/21(1 –  e) + ....  = – 1/252. 

Intriguingly, the "converted" holistic expression for ζ(– 1) is exactly the same as that for ζ(– 13)
=  – 1/12.

In this respect, it is just like a clock that at both at 1.00 hours and at 13.00 hours will show the same time (representing 1 AM and 1 PM respectively). 

Though the early results for the smaller negative odd integer values of ζ(1 – s) involve the simple reciprocal of a whole number, later results look much more unwieldy with the numerator now attaining an increasingly large size. as can be seen here.

However in principle they can all be equally expressed in terms of the standard holistic "conversion" for ζ(– 13).

So ζ(– 11) =  2.691.113/2730(e– 1) + 2.691.213/2730(e– 1) + 2.691.313/2730(e– 1) + ...  

= 691/32760.


I now wish to comment on the true qualitative holistic significance of these number transformations.

So again from the standard linear perspective the series for ζ(– 1) seems utterly straightforward, representing the familiar sum of the natural numbers i.e. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... 

However, though we expect the  result of this infinite series to diverge - in conventional terms - to  
∞, in fact according to the Riemann zeta function, the result = – 1/12.

The implications here could not be more significant, for when one properly understands the true reason for this "strange" result it then becomes readily apparent that our present interpretation of number operations (such as addition) is simply not fit for purpose.

In the conventional approach both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of number understanding are formally abstracted from each other leaving the misleading impression that number operations can be understood in an absolute quantitative manner (without the need for any qualitative considerations).

So, again in conventional terms, the natural numbers are treated in an absolute independent manner (with respect merely to their quantitative identity).

However this position is strictly quite untenable for if numbers were truly independent of each other in an absolute fashion, then it would not be possible to understand them in relation to each other.

So this all important aspect of number interdependence - which inherently is of a qualitative nature - in conventional mathematical terms is simply reduced in a quantitative manner.

And this reduced quantitative way of thinking leads directly to a reduced notion of the whole as merely the sum of its constituent parts.

Thus, from this perspective, when for example we attempt to sum an infinite series, we do not give this series a proper collective identity (as befits its infinite status) but rather merely a part identity as the aggregate of its individual finite elements.

And we are so attuned to reducing whole to part notions in conventional mathematical terms that we no longer even question this approach.

However to coherently interpret the Riemann zeta function, we need to radically change the prevailing mathematical orthodoxy.

For rather than number misleadingly being treated with with respect to an absolute quantitative identity, number must now be understood in truly relative terms (with explicitly recognised quantitative and qualitative aspects).

In recent weeks, I have been showing how a hidden qualitative aspect must be introduced to coherently interpret values of the Riemann zeta function for values of s > 1.

So as well as the recognised linear element, an unrecognised circular aspect is likewise involved.
However because intuitively meaningful quantitative results emerge for the function (within this range of s) we misread the dynamic relationship as between both linear and circular aspects of the number system that is properly involved, thereby reducing interpretation in a linear quantitative manner.

However a mirror image picture then emerges with respect to values of the function for s < 0.

Again, both quantitative and qualitative aspects are involved. However, here the numerical result that is given primarily represents a true whole (i.e. qualitative) interpretation of the series (which is then indirectly converted in a quantitative manner).

Thus because of the complete lack of a recognised holistic aspect in conventional mathematical terms, the results that arise must necessarily remain non-intuitive from a limited linear perspective.

So in the most beautiful manner possible the Riemann zeta function - when correctly understood - shows how both quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) aspects fundamentally interact in a dynamic two-way relative fashion throughout the number system.  

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Ramanujan's Letter (3)

We are continuing here our explorations from the previous two blog entries.

Once again we have seen with respect to the value of ζ(– 13) = – 1/12, a remarkable connection as between the analytic (linear) interpretation of the Riemann zeta function and a "new" holistic (circular) interpretation, based on Ramanujan's ingenious formula for 1/24.  

And whereas the linear interpretation leads to a seemingly "nonsensical" result that is completely non-intuitive from this perspective, the corresponding circular interpretation  leads by contrast to a fully intuitive result (as the indirect quantitative expression of an interpretation that is directly of a holistic intuitive nature).

And the numerical answer here is directly related in a very simple way to the corresponding value of s (representing the common power or exponent to which all the natural numbers are raised).

So whereas in standard interpretation, the value of a series the sum of terms is calculated with respect to base numbers, where each term is viewed as making a separate independent contribution, by contrast with holistic interpretation, the value of a series of terms is viewed in terms of the overall interdependent structure of the series, now calculated indirectly in quantitative terms with respect to dimensional numbers.

So once again with respect to ζ(– 13)  = 113 + 213 + 313 + 413 + ..., in standard interpretation, we calculate each individual term separately with respect to its base value (raised to the default dimension of 1).

Thus 113  = 11, 213  = 80921, 313 = 15943231, 413 = 67108864and so on. 

We the attempt to aggregate these values through addition of each term, whereby it quickly becomes apparent that their sum diverges to ∞ (from this perspective).

However, as the correct value of ζ(– 13) = – 1/12, this clearly shows that the standard (linear) interpretation does not apply in this case.

By contrast with holistic interpretation, we treat the overall series as a collective unit (where no separate meaning attaches to each individual term). Rather, we are now viewing the series with respect to a common structural feature of shared interdependence by all the terms, which is given through the dimensional value (to which each term is raised).

Now again, strictly according to the Riemann zeta function, the dimension here is – 13.

So ζ(– 13) = 1/
1 – 13 + 1/2 – 13  + 1/3 – 13  + 1/4 – 13  + ...  = 113 + 213 + 313 + 413 + ...

And with s = – 12, – 13 = s – 1.

And we can see that the value of the series i.e. – 1/12 = 1/s.

However to indirectly express this shared feature of interdependence with respect to the collective series in a quantitative manner, we need to apply a holistic "conversion" with respect to each term, through division by an appropriate "circular" component.

So the 1st term, i.e. 
113, is thereby divided by (1 –  e)/2, the 2nd term, i.e. 213 by (1 –  e)/2, the 3rd term, i.e. 313 by (1 –  e)/2, the 4th term, i.e. 413 by (1 –  e)/2  and so on.

We are then enabled to add the numerical value of each separate term in the accepted quantitative manner to obtain a value for the infinite series of terms = – 1/12.

Therefore the vital point to grasp here is that the value of  ζ(– 13) with respect to the Riemann zeta function, properly conforms to a holistic rather than analytic interpretation of number. Now properly this holistic interpretation is directly of an intuitive qualitative nature, by which the overall interdependence of terms in the series is appreciated. However indirectly - as we have seen - it can then be given an indirect quantitative value, through applying each term to an appropriate "circular" number conversion.


However the deeper point here is that in order to be meaningful, all values of the Riemann zeta function (for s < 0) must be given such holistic type interpretation. Once again, though in direct terms such appreciation is of a direct qualitative intuitive nature, indirectly it can be given a coherent quantitative expression. 

Only then, can the true significance of Riemann's functional equation be properly understood, i.e. where the function for positive values of s > 1 is paired with the same function for corresponding values of 1 – s (which are negative). 

In other words the functional equation to be properly interpreted must be understood in a dynamic relative manner. Thus what has an analytic (quantitative) interpretation where s > 1, has a corresponding holistic (qualitative) interpretation where (1 – s) < 0 and vice versa.

So quantitative notions of number independence can have no strict meaning in the absence of corresponding qualitative notions of number interdependence (and vice versa). Thus number independence and number interdependence are strictly relative notions, which mutually imply each other in a dynamic interactive fashion.  


Though the rational values for other negative (odd) integer values of s with respect to the Riemann zeta function are more difficult to fully unravel, the basic points that I have made here with respect to ζ(– 13), will hold in all cases.

In fact the number 12 plays a special role with respect to all these values.

The denominator of the value of the Riemann zeta function (for all odd integer values) is divisible by 12.

So the denominator of  ζ(– 1)  = 12 (which is divisible by 12). 

The denominator of ζ(– 3) = 120 (which is divisible by 12).

The denominator of ζ(– 5) = 252 (which is divisible by 12).

The denominator of  ζ(– 7) = 240 (which is divisible by 12).

The denominator of  ζ(– 9)  = 132 (which is divisible by 12).

The denominator of ζ(– 11) = 32760 (which is divisible by 12).

The denominator of 
ζ(– 13) = 12 (which is divisible by 12).

There is another important observation that can be made here.

The behaviour of these denominators is itself strongly subject to cycles of 12.

So as we know ζ(– 1)  = – 1/12.

Then when we move on through a complete (negative) cycle of 12, ζ(– 13) =  – 1/12.

Though the numerator from here on steadily grows larger and larger, the denominator still remains strongly subject to such cyclical behaviour.

Thus the denominator of  ζ(– 25)  = 12 and the denominator of ζ(– 37) = 12. 
Now the denominator of ζ(– 49) breaks this trend = 132.

However it is once again restored  for the vast majority of further cycles of 12.

In particular for ζ(– 121), where s = 120,  the denominator = 12.

This would suggest that all these values can be readily expressed with respect to the "central" value for ζ(– 13).

Therefore once again for example,  ζ(– 3)  = 1/120.

The appropriate "converted" holistic sum of terms for this series is then given by,

113/5(e2π – 1) + 213/5(e4π – 1) + 313/5(e6π – 1) + ....  = 1/120  or alternatively,

113/5(1– i  – 1) + 213/5(1– 2i  – 1) + 313/5(1– 3i  – 1) + ...   = 1/120.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Ramanujan's Letter (2)

I will attempt to develop further the insights in yesterday's blog entry that were directly related to the remarkable formula for 1/24 (given by Ramanujan in his 1st letter to Hardy).

Once again we showed - using this formula - how a fascinating sum over the natural number expression can be given for – 1/12.

Now according to the Riemann Zeta function,

ζ(– 1) = – 1/12. Likewise, perhaps surprisingly, ζ(– 13) = – 1/12.

So if we let 1/s = – 1/12, then s =  – 12. Therefore ζ(– 13) = ζ(s – 1).

Then we have the remarkable result that ζ(s – 1) = 1/s

Therefore the result of the Riemann zeta function for ζ(– 13), where s =  – 12 is given by the reciprocal of s, = – 1/12.

In other words, the result of the function for this negative value of s, where s relates to the dimensional power (to which successive natural numbers are raised) is given directly as the reciprocal of that same dimensional number.

So if we were to write out - according to the Riemann zeta function - the numerical expression corresponding to ζ(– 13), we would obtain the following,

ζ(– 13) = 113 + 213 + 313 + 413 +...   = – 1/12.

However clearly this result has no meaning in terms of the standard analytic manner of interpreting the sums of series.

The reason for this is that a new holistic manner of interpretation is now required to make sense of this result (which is non-intuitive in conventional mathematical terms).

And there is a deep clue in the very nature of the result as to what is involved.

In conventional analytic terms, the numerical sum  of terms of an expression is treated in a reduced quantitative fashion, where ultimately it is interpreted with respect to the base values of each term (raised to the default dimensional power of 1).

Thus 113 from this perspective = 1 (i.e. 11), 213 = 8092 (i.e. 80921), 313 = 1594323 (i.e. 15943231) and so on.

Thus when we attempt to add these terms, the series quickly diverges (to what in reduced quantitative terms is expressed as ∞).

However when we invert this whole process and now look at the series directly from the dimensional power, with no regard for the specific base values that arise, we can see that the actual result i.e. – 1/12 can in fact be meaningfully related to the common dimensional - rather than varying base - numbers that arise.

In other words, the true meaning of the series is holistic where the overall dimensional structure of terms - rather than the specific value of each term - is what is relevant in this context.

So from this holistic perspective, we cannot give the terms in the series expansion a separate i.e. part, identity, as each term only has meaning in the overall relational context of the series which is directly of a qualitative holistic nature, which however can then - indirectly - be given  a distinct quantitative interpretation!.

Therefore, once again,

 ζ(– 13) = 113 + 213 + 313 + 413 +...   = – 1/12, has no meaning from the standard analytic perspective.

However we have already provided an alternative expression which does - indirectly - offer an intuitively satisfying value for – 1/12.

And remarkably when we look at this alternative expression the numerators of each term, can be seen to exactly replicate the corresponding terms in the Riemann expansion for ζ(– 13). 

So, as given in yesterday's entry,

2. 113/(1 –  e) + 2. 213/(1 –  e) + 2. 313/(1 –  e) +...    = – 1/12.

Now, to achieve direct comparison with the Riemann function we can take the 2  out of the numerator and divide the denominator in each case by 2.

So the numerator of the 1st term for example would now be 113, bearing direct comparison with the corresponding term in the Riemann zeta function.

The denominator of this term would then be given as 
(1 –  e2π )/2.

Therefore the significance of the denominator term in each case is that it provides a ready means of providing the necessary holistic conversion for the corresponding terms in the Riemann zeta function.

And just as analytic interpretation is strongly based on linear rational notions - where literally all real quantitative values are ultimately interpreted in 1-dimensional  terms (as lying on the number line) - holistic interpretation, indirectly, is strongly based on circular quantitative notions (relating to the unit circle in the complex plane) that directly are understood in a intuitive manner.

So we can readily see in our denominator "conversions" this strong circular aspect, with the dimensional value to which e is raised representing natural number multiples of 2π (as the circumference of the unit circle).  

Friday, March 3, 2017

Ramanujan's Letter (1)

I have often been intrigued as to the contents of that famous 1st letter of Ramanujan to Hardy. (I am indebted here to the supporting link provided on the excellent "You Tube" video  "Ramanujan: Making sense of 1+2+3+... = -1/12 and Co.")

In connection with the Riemann zeta function, considerable mention has been made of the inclusion of this - apparently - nonsensical - formula for the sum of the natural numbers, i.e.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...   = – 1/12.

However this seems a somewhat less eccentric result when one interprets it more formally as the value of the Riemann zeta function (for s = – 1).

In fact in the same letter, Ramanujan also claims that,

13 + 23 + 33 + 43 + ...  = 1/120 (which corresponds in turn to the value of the Riemann zeta function (for s = – 3).

However though undoubtedly impressive, the derivation of these results is not in fact difficult (when one abandons the need to derive numerical results that conform to our normal expectations regarding number behaviour).

The first result can be derived easily with nothing less than elementary arithmetic and some creative juggling with infinite series.

Though the second result is more difficult to derive, it can be achieved through the same kind of series juggling (with a little help from elementary calculus).

So in a way I do not find it surprising at all, that Ramanujan - given his enormous intuitive gift for discovering original number patterns - would have come up with these results.

However some of his other results just take my breath away.

For example, he gives a formula for 1/24 that leaves me lost in admiration for its bold ingenuity. And we must remember that Ramanujan lived long before the age of calculators and computers that can greatly assist the testing of numerical patterns!

Now 24 is an especially interesting number. In fact it can be directly connected with that 1st result we mentioned (i.e. – 1/12 as the sum of the natural integers)

It has been shown to have mysterious connections to the bosonic superstring theory in physics. It also has strong connections with the "Monster Group" which is the most symmetrical object yet discovered.

It also has direct connections to the "Leech Lattice" enabling the most efficient packing of objects to take place in a hypersphere of 24 dimensions.

Intriguingly the sum of the squares of the 1st 24 natural numbers = the square of an another natural number (i.e. 70) and this is the only case where the sum of squares of the natural numbers (up to n) leads to the square of another natural number!

Also from my own research, I found "24" especially important with respect to deriving a comprehensive holistic mathematical model of the basic personality types (with complementary connections, I believe to the basic "impersonality types" represented by bosonic string theory).

So in this context I was especially interested in seeing Ramanujan's unique formula for 24 (or rather 1/24), which is given as,

113/(e– 1) + 213/(e– 1) + 313/(e– 1) + ...  = 1/24.

As this initially, seemed almost "too good to be true",  I suspected that it was perhaps designed as an approximation. However this is not the case, with the value converging quickly to 1/24 after just a few terms.

Indeed, when the 1st 8 terms are added, the result = 1/24.0000000004...

It struck me in looking at this result that the formula can be provided in a slightly different - though intriguing - fashion.

e2π  = 1– i .

Therefore we can rewrite Ramanujan's formula as,

113/(1– i  – 1) + 213/(1– 2i  – 1) + 313/(1– 3i  – 1) + ...   = 1/24.

Then because 1/24 is so closely connected with  – 1/12, we can therefore now provide an interesting sum over the natural numbers expression for – 1/12, i.e.

2. 113/(1 1– i ) + 2. 213/(1 1– 2i ) + 2. 313/(1 1– 3i ) +...    = – 1/12 or alternatively,

2. 113/(1 –  e2π ) + 2. 213/(1 –  e4π ) + 2. 313/(1 –  e) +...    = – 1/12

There is a fascinating connection here with earlier work I concluded on this blog site, where I attempted to approximate values for Riemann zeta function over different ranges (for positive and negative values of s).

In particular in "Approximating ζ(s) between 0 and – 1" , I noticed a remarkably close connection as between the value of ζ(– .5)  and the corresponding value of eπ/2 (i.e. i i).

I then used an approach based on the value of  e– π/2 to approximate results for all values of s in this range between 0 and – 1.

So the approximation there for ζ(– 1) = – 1/12 was given as 2eπ = – 2i2i.

The simple approximation therefore here for 1/24 =  eπ, i.e. i2i. So this result for 1/24 - though in itself not terribly accurate - indicates however a deep connection with ekπ  expressions (where k is an even integer).  

This would suggest strongly to me therefore that there is an intimate connection in terms of the "non-intuitive" values corresponding to negative values of s for the Riemann zeta function and corresponding sums over natural numbers expressions that involve e.

So this provides some perspective on the "Alice in Wonderland" nature of behaviour for values of s > 1 and corresponding values of s < 0 respectively. 

As I have repeatedly stated on these blogs our conventional notion of addition - where results intuitively conform to our expectations - is in fact based on a reduced interpretation of number behaviour where the qualitative (holistic) aspect is reduced in a quantitative (analytic) fashion.

In particular this involves treating the whole (in any context) as merely the reduced expression of its constituent (independent) parts.

Now this approach does indeed work - at least in quantitative terms - for all values of the Riemann zeta function (where s > 1).

However it then breaks down badly for all corresponding values of the function (where s < 0).

Here, infinite series (in the sums over natural numbers expressions) though clearly divergent (from the conventional analytic perspective) yet result in definite finite values.    

Now the clue here is that number behaviour in fact switches from a linear (analytic) to a - relative - circular (holistic) pattern. Putting it in more psychological terms, we have a switch here in number behaviour from what accords with conscious (analytic) interpretation to a new behaviour which now accords directly with unconscious (holistic) appreciation.

The very nature of the conventional analytic approach is that it is - literally - 1-dimensional, in that all real results are treated as numbers lying in the same number line (with dimension s = 1).

And this linear approach works (for values of s > 1) where intuitively satisfying quantitative results emerge for the Riemann function.

However when we apply this linear approach to values of the function (where s < 0), there can be no intuitive resonance with these results.

What in fact has happened is that dimensional behaviour has now directly to a circular notion (as indicated by a power of e = kπ).

Thus when we translate the "non-intuitive" sum over natural numbers expressions (as previously interpreted in linear dimensional terms) to a new sum over natural numbers expressions (as now interpreted in circular dimensional terms) an intuitively satisfying quantitative result can emerge.

So by using Ramanujan's ingenious formula for 1/24, I have shown here how the value of ζ(– 1)  = – 1/12 can be equally expressed in a circular dimensional fashion as an infinite sum over natural numbers, which converges quickly towards the expected answer.

This would suggest that in principle that this circular type "conversion" is equally possible for all values of the Riemann function (where s < 0).

It would also suggest that associated with these new sum over the natural numbers expressions are corresponding "circular" product over the primes expressions. 

And it is through such "conversions" that the - at present - hidden world of the Riemann function for values of s < 0 can become intuitively accessible in quantitative terms.

However this implies the much deeper realisation that the number system itself must be understood in a dynamic interactive manner, entailing both complementary quantitative (analytic) and qualitative (holistic) expressions.  In psychological terms this requires the corresponding full integration of both conscious and unconscious aspects of mathematical understanding.